Parking-space spat may halt $400 million tower

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt

Van Ness and Market is the location of the One Oak Street Project. This intersection is known for its powerful winds that sweep through the wide intersection. Photos by google.

The tower proposed for the northwest corner of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue is big and bold in every respect. It would rise 40 stories. It would cost more than $400 million to build. It would bring a European-style piazza, an expansive restaurant with 30-foot glass walls and 304 luxury condos to one of the city’s busiest crossroads…

In the case of the One Oak Street tower, which goes before the Planning Commission on Thursday for approvals, the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association is pushing the developer to trim the number of parking spaces by 60 spots, from 136 to 76. This would represent a reduction from .45 to .25 parking spaces per unit, or from nearly 1 for every 2 to 1 for 4…

“It’s a marketing tool,” Yarne said. “Nobody, myself included, expects people in this building to be driving everywhere. We don’t. But the marketing professionals will tell you until the cows come home that people want the option.”…

“We are in challenging times in San Francisco because construction costs are high and sales prices have flattened,” Yarne said…

If the Planning Department approves the development, it goes to the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee in July and later to the full board for final approval… (more)

The more famous SF becomes for being a parking nightmare the more people will demand parking, but this project sounds like it has more than just parking issues. The idea that the public space will be cleaner and more well-kept than most is the real page turner since this is ground zero for the needle brigade. Stay tuned…

After a short deliberation the Planning Commissioners approved the higher number of parking spaces. Commissioner Hillis said that he know of only one family in his childrens’ school that did not own a car. One assumes that his is not that family. AS they voted to approve the project the Commissions admitted that some day condos may be built without parking spaces but that day has not yet come. One need only look at the numbers of requests for parking to verify that is true.

Sanctuary City for Housing Developers: Pitting Neighbor Against Neighbor for Affordable Housing

Patrick Monette Shaw – excerpt

New article is now available on-line at www.stopLHHdownsize.com. A printer-friendly article is attached. Hyperlinks to various supporting background files and media articles are only available via the web site.

The Sudden “Deal” Struck for Inclusionary Housing (Two Days Later on May 17, 2017)

The dueling proposals for Inclusionary Housing amendments between Supervisors Peskin and Kim vs. Supervisors Safai, Breed, and Tang purportedly reached a “deal” on Wednesday, May 17 that was reported in the San Francisco Examiner on Friday, May 19. Unfortunately, the actual “compromise” legislation was not posted to the Board of Supervisors web site in advance of its Land Use Committee hearing on Monday May 22, and the details were released just today, too late for inclusion in this article. The Land Use Committee will consider the single, compromise deal on June 5… (more)

Supervisors Reach Compromise On Affordable Housing Mandates

by Shane Downing : hoodline – excerpt

Last night, moderates and progressives on the Board of Supervisors reached a compromise on how much affordable housing to require in new market-rate developments, an agreement that both prioritizes low-income families and caters to middle-class San Franciscans who don’t usually qualify for subsidized housing.

Last night’s compromise between Supervisors London Breed, Jane Kim, Aaron Peskin, Ahsha Safai and Katy Tang was a year in the making, as progressives and moderates previously locked horns on how much affordable housing to mandate in new market-rate developments.

Whereas Breed, Safai and Tang had supported legislation requiring a 18 percent requirement that targeted middle-class families, progressives Kim and Peskin pushed for a 24 percent set-aside for lower-income families…

The compromise addresses issues that were raised in 2016’s Proposition C, which required developers to sell or rent 25 percent of their new units at below-market rates. Implementing the ballot measure hinged on a yet-to-be-released feasibility study from the controller’s office…

In a related matter, supervisors unanimously voted on Tuesday to approve amendments to a proposed density bonus and height law to make it more family-friendly and take into account varying property values across San Francisco’s neighborhoods… (more)

Tables Turned: High-Paid Techies Priced Out Of Silicon Valley

by CBS : youtube – excerpt (video included)

Too much money is not working out well for any of the workers, included the techies. Around 40% are not planning to stay in the Bay Area for long. Who will live in the city when the workers leave? Who will be paying high rents when robots replace them?

How to prevent fraudulent owner move-in evictions

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

The San Francisco supes start discussing fraudulent owner-move-in evictions Friday, and local tenant groups are asking that both of the bills coming to the committee be amended to include more effective protections for renters.

Sup. Mark Farrell has an OMI bill. So do Sups. Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin. The Government Audit and Oversight Committee will hold a hearing starting at 10 am on eviction enforcement, and tenant advocates plan to be there in numbers…

The two bills are aimed at addressing what everyone agrees is a serious problem: Landlords are getting rid of rent-controlled tenants by arguing that they want to move in (or let a close relative move in) to the apartment. That’s legal, for the most part – the owner of a building has the right to live in their property.

But in hundreds of instances every year, the landlord tosses out the tenant, waits a few months, and then rents the place out to someone else at a much higher price.

And there’s no easy way to stop that…

This is one of the major tenant issues of the year. The bills won’t actually come out of tomorrow’s hearing; they will be heard at a later point. But we will see the beginnings of the debate shape up… (more)

 

What Is The Market Demand For Micro Housing In San Francisco?

By Scott Beyer : forbes – excerpt

San Francisco, CA–There’s no doubt that the demand for living in San Francisco would, under an open market, create far more housing; this, in essence, is what the high prices and Nimby battles are all about. But one remaining mystery would be—void of the regulatory barriers, what type of housing would all this demand create? Existing data and anecdotal observation suggests that a lot of it would be micro housing.

Indeed, micro units—which vary by definition, but are generally thought to be studio apartments of under 300 square feet—are taking off in U.S. cities. Before Seattle’s government effectively regulated them away, they were accounting for a quarter of the city’s new housing starts. Other prominent projects have gone up in New York City, Austin, Denver, and other places where density and high prices require smaller living arrangements. The nation’s largest micro-unit project is even being built near downtown Houston, a city where big, cheap sprawl housing is still readily available, even close in (although some of the project’s units have since been converted to condo hotels)… (more)

Artists fight eviction from warehouse at SF Rent Board

By : sfexaminer – excerpt

A group of artists who are facing eviction from a warehouse in Bernal Heights have turned to the San Francisco Rent Board for help in a legal battle against their landlord.

The artists were served with an eviction notice from the warehouse on Peralta Avenue after a fire killed three dozen people in December at an artist collective in Oakland called the Ghost Ship. They have since refused to leave their space and filed a petition with the Rent Board in January, asking for greater protections from eviction under the rent control ordinance of 1979.

The decision could bolster the tenants’ argument in San Francisco Superior Court, where they are fighting an unlawful detainer case for staying at the warehouse…

The Rent Board heard their argument for more than six hours Thursday, according to Executive Director Robert Collins. He said the board has to decide whether the landlord rented the space for commercial or residential use.

“The basic issue is that they have asked the Rent Board to determine whether the rent ordinance has jurisdiction over their tenancy,” Collins said. “Was it rented by the landlord for these folks to live in, or was it a commercial tenancy?”…

Testimony accepted Thursday at the Rent Board included a March 6 letter from Supervisor Hillary Ronen, who argued in support of the tenants.

“It has long been the practice of landlords to accept rent checks while meticulously blinding themselves to the residential use of their buildings,” Ronen wrote. “The tenants keep quiet or risk exposing themselves and losing their homes while city officials are lax in enforcement of codes. These practices led to the tragic deaths of 36 people in Oakland.”

The Rent Board is expected to make a decision within six to eight weeks, according to Collins...(more)

This is a good test case to see how the courts view the living situation in a live-work environment. Is this a commercial use or residential and do they cancel each other out? In this tight real estate market we need to re-visit the concept of live-work. One space for both uses mean less commuting, less traffic and a better quality of life for the people who are paying a single rent. This is the opposite of gentrification and could even be a good way to curb the upward spiral of rents as it cuts demand for more space.